Gov Brown announces sweeping new water restriction measures

I would not say that I'm missing the scale of the problem...

The state is grossly overpopulated.

You can't out legislate natural resource shortages.

Liberal, pro environmental policies have strangled the innovation that could help the state become partially water independant.

Free markets solve problems, because there is money to be made.
Governments only make problems worse, because they seek more power and control.
 
VP Mark said:
The state is grossly overpopulated.
Click to expand...

The world is grossly overpopulated. I saw a scientist (if you believe in that sort of thing) on TV suggesting that the sustainable population of the world is ~2 billion (vs. the 7+ that we have).

Maybe all those people from CA can simply move to Oregon or Nevada...or maybe Illinois? Cuz that will surely solve all the problems.

To suggest that the world's problems can be reduced down to the simplistics of gov't vs. free-market politics is rather naïve, you'll pardon me for saying.

EDIT: I looked up how many power plants there are in CA, and it's 151. That includes coal, gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, solar, and biomass (I don't even know what that is, landfill?). So a project to build desalination plants on the scale of the Carlsbad/San Diego one to handle even 25 percent of the water needs would require more plants than the total number of power plants in the state...that's not realistic, is it?

Or we could just move those overpopulous people from CA to another state and overload that one, or we could just kill them, or we could build a time machine and go back and put saltpeter in the water to try to control the population...but it's easier to just blame liberals or environmentalists.
 
Setec Astronomy said:
I think the part you guys are missing is the scale of the problem--the desalination plant they are building in San Diego, forgetting the cost and the power requirements and the 3 years to build it, will only provide 0.13 percent of the state's water needs.

So they would have to build ~190 similar plants just to achieve the 25 percent reduction that the governor strives to achieve with his measures yesterday, or ~750 plants to provide all the water. That's a lot of $, a lot of oceanfront real estate, a lot of power, a lot of pipelines, a lot of eminent domain. Might be a trillion dollars, no problem for a state that was essentially bankrupt a few years ago. Huh?
Click to expand...

i understand. California doesn't need desal to fulfill all of their water needs. it (the system in an ideal situation) would only need to run at a varied duty cycle at times when their fresh water levels reach certain points to help offset the dire situations.

we need useable air, fresh water and nutritious food. when any one of them starts to become scarce, you have to figure out a reliable way to get it, and none will be cheap. to get fresh water into the state in any other way will be expensive as well. i also think it could be a free market arms race for the tech, thus reducing costs...but imo they keep it at bay for various creepy reasons.

desal is going to be a commoditzed thing at some point. it has to be. it's not a perfect system but it's getting better.
 
They could always build the plants in Mexico and pipe the water north. They are already drawing it from long distances now. If they want to build an oil pipeline they can build a water pipeline.

The area has wasted water for years.
 
Bunky said:
They could always build the plants in Mexico and pipe the water north. They are already drawing it from long distances now. If they want to build an oil pipeline they can build a water pipeline.

The area has wasted water for years.
Click to expand...

mexican water....toilet sentence!



just kidding.
 
Setec Astronomy said:
The world is grossly overpopulated. I saw a scientist (if you believe in that sort of thing) on TV suggesting that the sustainable population of the world is ~2 billion (vs. the 7+ that we have).

Maybe all those people from CA can simply move to Oregon or Nevada...or maybe Illinois? Cuz that will surely solve all the problems.

To suggest that the world's problems can be reduced down to the simplistics of gov't vs. free-market politics is rather naïve, you'll pardon me for saying.

Or we could just move those overpopulous people from CA to another state and overload that one, or we could just kill them, or we could build a time machine and go back and put saltpeter in the water to try to control the population...but it's easier to just blame liberals or environmentalists.
Click to expand...

If the sustainable population of the earth was 2 billion, and more than that could not be supported...

The population of the earth would be 2 billion.

Think what you will, but free markets provide the technology, innovation, and inspiration needed to bring the world forward. Government intervention and liberal policies eventually leads to a cross road to where their own policies strangle themself to death.

Is a free market the way to solve the world's problems? It's the best place to start, not a government run nanny state.

Who is John Galt?
 
VP Mark said:
If the sustainable population of the earth was 2 billion, and more than that could not be supported...

The population of the earth would be 2 billion.

Is a free market the way to solve the world's problems? It's the best place to start, not a government run nanny state.

Who is John Galt?
Click to expand...

Listen Ayn, let's talk again at the end of the century. I could make the argument that the "grossly overpopulated" state of California is that way BECAUSE of free markets, because if it was a government-run nanny-state, they would have limited the population through draconian measures, the way the Chinese do.

An old friend of mine who is long dead, used to tell me "everything in moderation"...there actually is a middle ground, with the proper amounts of capitalism and socialism, free markets and government regulation. We've just forgotten that it exists, because in today's world it's all one way or the other.

Tell me how the free market solves a drought problem with desalination plants that take 5 years to plan & build? CA is 4 years into this drought, 5 years ago no "capitalists" would fund a desalination plant, because there was plenty of water, and if no drought ever came, there would be no return on their investment.

No politician would propose it even now, because the drought will likely be over before the plant is finished, and there's no way he could sell the spending of public money for something that might never be used (same as 5 years ago when there was no drought). Is the "free-market" going to build plants now, that might not be done before the drought ends? So we're just back to where we started, next drought we'll be having this same argument.

Today's world is about "me me me" "now now now", nobody gives a crap about anybody else or what's going to happen tomorrow. But for now Ayn, I tire of this discussion.

PS Did I miss a news flash and we no longer have a free market? Does the government of CA prohibit the construction of desalination plants in some fit of nanny-statism?
 
Desalination plants have been fought against for decades by environmentalists and progressive political groups in California.

The reason private companies will not take up the plants is because the price of water is completely controlled by government municipalities and they would thus not be 'allowed' to make an actual profit.

If the problem is as bad as you say, the free market would solve it without government intervention.

The price and/or scarcity of water would cause the price to rise to where people would leave the state, thus reducing the overpopulation problem and decreasing the water shortage. Other states would benefit from the population growth as it will add to its business infrastructure.

We have very little of a free market though.. the gov't of cali will cry and scream horror until it forces other states and the federal government to flood it's state with money and water 'for the sake of the people', thus completely avoiding the overall issue of over population and water shortage.

By the way, sarcastically calling me Ayn really doesn't bother me. That would only bother someone that thinks being associated with free/independent thought is evil.

But I digress, this is a detailing forum so I will back out of this thread after this post as well. Onward!
 
Must be nice to see the world in such a black and white way. No gray areas anywhere.

The mountain snow pack in Cali gets smaller and smaller each year because of the changing weather. The farming in the center of the state needs to take more and more of the remaining water to feed the nation. The reservoirs are drying up and now the ground water is disappearing.

Free markets are not going to fix that. Building 800 desalination plants costing a billion each is not the answer.
 
Showers once a week, No washing cars, wash dogs + pets every other month, Change all lawns to SYNLawn artificial grass never looked more natural., ifs it yellow let it mellow if its brown flush it down, public swimming pools only, no water features for landscaping (fountains, ponds, waterfalls), bigger fines if you disobey with exponential rises for repeat offenders, Progressive water rates more you use more your rate goes up.

As for the question about would you build as many desalinization plants as you would Power plants. I would only ask which which one can you live with out at all, I would think that would answer which is the more important one to have.

Partially joking in case some the sarcasm doesn't make it through. but drastic times call for drastic measures.

I keep wondering if I will be alive when the ....
08
 
Bunky said:
There is some truth to this. When we were at worst water restrictions with everyone asked to reduce water, Pepsi's Aquafina brand of water continued to produce bottled using the same public water source as all other Durham, NC residents that were told to conserve.
Click to expand...

yeah i thought about the manufacturing side of this, even though it (the article) is a farce. i've never been through a water restriction but i'd imagine there have to be priorities that are laid out - manufacturing and such take far precedent over discretionary use.

threads like this get me thinking and i do enough of that for other stuff, haha.
 
Since I saw this problem coming years ago I altered my water uses.

I completely stopped water all four of my lawns and let them die. Looks terrible. I told a neighbor that if he didn't like it he could use his water to keep them green. And i would even loan him 250 feet of garden hose.

I went from 15 hundred cubic feet of water a month. Down to one hundred cubic feet in one house and 3 hundred in the other. ( I own two houses next door to one another, one is my office)

Here in Los Angeles the most annoying part of our water bill is the sewer fee. The LADWP assumes that if you use a lot of water it is going into the sewer. Naturally not one drop used on a lawn finds it's way to the sewer. But when I was watering my lawns I was paying appx $175.00 per bill for the sewer fee. Now it's $8.00

And when I am washing a car I park it on the dead grass in my backyard and let the runoff water the lawn. So no water is actually wasted.

I have a rain gauge and here are the rainfall figure at my house.

2009 21.32 inches.
2010 25.20 inches
2011 10.32 inches
2012 7.89 inches
2013 6.18 inches
2014 8.44 inches

Yes. We are in a severe drought. Our snow pack (where Southern California gets 90 % of our yearly water) is at 17% of normal and the rainy/snow season is over.
 
Of course the interesting note is that waterless products are not free from water - they are bunged full or water. The big difference, compared to traditional methods, is that you are bringing the water in from somewhere else. ONR or similar is better but then you are still using a bunch of water to dilute it so one could argue that it is little different from a bucket wash.

Worse still, in the low water methods, is that users of these methods routinely waste a load of water... washing the multitude of cloths! My washer is taking upwards of 10 gallons of water to do a full load. With a hose, I can rinse the car with a fraction of that amount!
 
I've been doing waterless or rinseless for a year now. But like PiPUK said, without knowing actual numbers I felt like I was using more water washing my MF's then using a hose to wash my car. I just got the Big Red Sponge I ordered. Going to go that route with ONR. I'll still have to wash MF's obviously. But it will cut down on my washing machine usage greatly.

I will argue with what he said about ONR using a "bunch of water to dilute it" For the average car I wash I use 1 gallon of water, if that. I'll put 2 gallons of water in my 3 gallon bucket and I can usually wash 3 cars with it. I used less when I did waterless, but imho rinseless works better. And even a full gallon of water per car is nothing. Especially now I'll be using a sponge and not have to wash 20 MF's every 3 days.
 
I've ditched MF towels for one MF sponge from MF madness. I hated washing all those darn towels. I never thought that was saving any water and in fact defeats the purpose when you come right down to it...plus taking as much if not more time.



I presoak each panel with a waterless wash. Then with a rinseless wash, I wipe each panel, rinse in grit guard bucket, and proceed to next panel. Total water used...2 gallons for rinseless solution. 2oz for waterless solution. No water required to wash lots of MF towels, just a quick rinse my MF sponge. I like to stay within the family...Megs D114-D115 is a killer combo.
 
Of course ONR as a pre-soak is only one option. I don't know about the US market, but in the UK we have 'prewash' products. They are specifically designed for the pre-soak use, cost dramatically less than ONR and are typically more potent cleaners. There are a fair few people who seem to think that, because ONR and and prewashes are totally different product types, that they do not compare. It astounds me that they do this when they actually use the two (totally different) products for the same application. Whilst I would definitely not use a prewash for the final wash, for a presoak, it is a totally different matter.

In terms of water use, I have seen lots of people shouting about their green credentials and their waterless/ONR regimes. They can use a gallon to presoak, can have two 7 gallon buckets for the wash and rinse and then need to clean cloths every 2nd or 3rd wash. They can easily use 10 gallons of water, which is probably more than I use with my prewash and 2BM method. The simple reality is that the use of ONR or waterless washes does not guarantee that you are using less water.

With regards to cutting down the number of cloths... this would concern me because one of the core reasons that these methods do not mark the paint is because you use a huge number of cloths and there is limited exposure to a dirty cloth. Take down the number of cloths and you increase the exposure to dirt.
 
Dedicated presoak products are scarce in the USA. Im NOT referring to foam. Waterless wash concentrations are better for presoak than ONR which is designed as a rinseless. To replace MF towels, the MF madness incredi-sponge is better. The nap is much longer, traps dirt better...but most of all, releases dirt very easily. Its without equal in my experience with rinseless wash media.
 
PiPUK said:
Of course the interesting note is that waterless products are not free from water - they are bunged full or water. The big difference, compared to traditional methods, is that you are bringing the water in from somewhere else. ONR or similar is better but then you are still using a bunch of water to dilute it so one could argue that it is little different from a bucket wash.

Worse still, in the low water methods, is that users of these methods routinely waste a load of water... washing the multitude of cloths! My washer is taking upwards of 10 gallons of water to do a full load. With a hose, I can rinse the car with a fraction of that amount!
Click to expand...

if one follows the directions and doesn't get wrapped up in the paranoia of the detailing forums re: technique alterations, you will use 1-2 gallons of water to wash and ONE wash media. nowhere does Optimum recommend using more than one piece of wash media for No Rinse. eventually you will have to wash your towel if you use a towel but there isn't a time line on that so you can wait until you have a legitimate load to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top